From a historical standpoint the liberals/conservatives are getting along as usual, it has been far worse before.

2. Candidates change more than voters do.

People think the Fed/State rights debate is new among many other wedge issues like the separation of Church and State. What liberals don't realize is that over time they indeed have been winning.

3. Independents aren't partisans.

Fark Independent.....enough said.

4. "Division" is easy to overstate.

They assume that every person toes the party line for every wedge issue. Log Cabin Republicans....

5. Campaign ads really, really, really don't make much difference.

The majority of people don't follow politics let alone politicians closely, most don't watch debates, etc. The propaganda war is effective which is why the liberals/conservative SuperPacs will be running 24/7 even out of election years to attempt to shape the hive mind.

Tigger:Political pundit is one of the most useless jobs in the world. In any studies of their actual predictions they perform at, or even worse than, random.

I wasn't aware of any formal studies of the issue, just specific individuals who really suck at their jobs (Morris, Kristol, etc.) and it's an open secret that they're always wrong. Got any links? Because if they even perform as well as random guesses, I would be surprised.

TelemonianAjax:Tigger: Political pundit is one of the most useless jobs in the world. In any studies of their actual predictions they perform at, or even worse than, random.

I wasn't aware of any formal studies of the issue, just specific individuals who really suck at their jobs (Morris, Kristol, etc.) and it's an open secret that they're always wrong. Got any links? Because if they even perform as well as random guesses, I would be surprised.

Tigger:TelemonianAjax: Tigger: Political pundit is one of the most useless jobs in the world. In any studies of their actual predictions they perform at, or even worse than, random.

I wasn't aware of any formal studies of the issue, just specific individuals who really suck at their jobs (Morris, Kristol, etc.) and it's an open secret that they're always wrong. Got any links? Because if they even perform as well as random guesses, I would be surprised.

Skirl Hutsenreiter:Tigger: TelemonianAjax: Tigger: Political pundit is one of the most useless jobs in the world. In any studies of their actual predictions they perform at, or even worse than, random.

I wasn't aware of any formal studies of the issue, just specific individuals who really suck at their jobs (Morris, Kristol, etc.) and it's an open secret that they're always wrong. Got any links? Because if they even perform as well as random guesses, I would be surprised.

Philip Tetlock "Expert Political Judgement"

This was a fascinating book.

\And frankly, it's amazing he even got so many to participate.

That he got so many to participate is actually a conclusion that his thesis predicts. Of course you participate in a study when you view the world through the lens of "I'm always right even when I'm not". The possibility that they would be made to look stupid never even crossed their mind.

lol political science. where is your political science when millions of people will, for no reason at all except rank stupidity, vote for a semi-sentient housewife from a frozen lake because she has big tits and talks about moose?

There IS no political science worthy of the name, it belongs in the humanities and is a branch of history if anything. I know people like to use the word science to describe what they do but really folks..

(caveat: There is scientific statistical study of politics. There is scientific psychology.)

gaspode:lol political science. where is your political science when millions of people will, for no reason at all except rank stupidity, vote for a semi-sentient housewife from a frozen lake because she has big tits and talks about moose?

There IS no political science worthy of the name, it belongs in the humanities and is a branch of history if anything. I know people like to use the word science to describe what they do but really folks..

(caveat: There is scientific statistical study of politics. There is scientific psychology.)

gaspode:lol political science. where is your political science when millions of people will, for no reason at all except rank stupidity, vote for a semi-sentient housewife from a frozen lake because she has big tits and talks about moose?

There IS no political science worthy of the name, it belongs in the humanities and is a branch of history if anything. I know people like to use the word science to describe what they do but really folks..

(caveat: There is scientific statistical study of politics. There is scientific psychology.)

Political Science is kind of an odd, halfway field between quantitative research and a humanities style theory based approach. Personally, I wind up more in the theory camp myself, but the statistical stuff can be interesting.

And there's been plenty of poli-sci ink spilled on Palin and her ilk. "Low Information Voters" gets a lot of play- it's political theory's way of saying, "abject moron who votes", or "teabagger". I was laughing my ass off when that one made the mainstream during this election cycle.